Decrease wrote:The issue for me is this. God mandated the 10 commandments to the "Federal" government not just the states. In that 10 commandments he outlawed murder--God did not leave it up to the states (tribes). Huckabee is the only person who says abortion should be decided by the federal government. All others say it should be left to the states. I do not believe murder (or slavery for that matter) should be left to the states. If Hillary Clinton was against murder of babies--she could tax me to death and I would vote for her. Why? Murder is more important than taxes.

Actually, God did nothing of the sort. Man's law.......God's law both are respected in the bible. I do believe there's even rulings on slavery and murder in that book you tote around.
Our federal government was designed with limited power. The powers not designated to it, by all accounts should be going to the states. That was a major issue in the cause of the civil war - not slavery, but the fact that the federal government wanted to take that power away from what should have been independent governing states under one umbrella.

As far as abortion, being against something doesn't make it go away. Abortion rates have been declining for years, and that's with the legalization. That shows progress. Women are given more information about their bodies [in sex-ed classes, not abstinence "classes"], and therefore can make better choices. That's progress. That's saying we can do something about the problem that does not include scare tactics, but information. And information has proven to be effective time and time again. Even more effective are support systems. You can be against it all you want, but until you offer to foster a young woman kicked out of her house for being pregnant, or adopt as many children as you can, you're really not doing much with your words. And that says even more - that you will condemn but not be involved in a solution.

Quite honestly, though, if one candidate gave a care about the children that were already here with encouraging stricter car seat laws (like rear facing until 35lbs, five point harness untill age , if more resources were encouraged to be dedicated to block communities, if tighter restrictions on our food were pushed (like being told what was a hybrid or messed with), that might get my attention a bit more than the if not anything else, hypocritical stance of abortion.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."
- M. MontessoriProud non-member of the HSLDA

I disagree, it is a decision acknowledging universally something called universal abstracts or pretending that abstracts are merely conventions. If you believe they are merely conventions then there is nothing wrong with letting each group decide. Yet, if universal abstracts exist, then issues like murder will destroy and divide a nation... as seen in the civil war.

I do not believe morality is a convention and thus a universal that should be decided universally.

Currently we have had over 50 million who have died due to abortion. This is not a debate about numbers of people, this is a discussion about whether universal abstracts like murder (abortion, genocide, etc) should be handled at the federal or state level.

So, you are essentially saying that if a state wished to enact genocide they should be allowed. Is that your stand?

Decrease wrote:So you are saying that issues of murder should be left to the state? I strongly disagree. That is a political philosophy that I cannot hold onto in regards to universal moral abstracts like murder. The ramifications philosophically is that if murder is left to individual states so should slavery, genocide and any number of other moral universal abstracts.

You do have to remember that for the longest time, slavery was left to the state.

I don't believe in one government controlling everything. That's not how our country was designed.

May I ask you, why you feel that the states cannot govern themselves? Why do you put so little stock in the ability of many? If I recall, this transfer of power into the hands of one is what helped considerably in the decline of the Roman Empire.

BTW, to call some thing a religious moral law and dismissing it as such is also unreal. Morals, by their nature, are either religious or they are made up. In the philosophical realm it is impossible to account logically for morals without religion. Philosophically they are only matters of opinion or convenience for a certain segment but they are essentially illogical.

Morals with religious background are made up, too. It is not necessary to have religion to be an upstanding citizen and even more importantly, know that what you are doing is right. Here's where I have a problem with organized religion - the very base for most is one of fear. Fear of doing the wrong thing, and fear of making mistakes. Morals coming from such a standpoint are not morals, per say, but a list of rules that one has no true understanding of. It's the same reason I think hitting children is wrong - to have them fear doing the wrong thing does not give them an understanding of the right thing, only a set of words to follow because "I say so."

And Theodore,

Regarding unwanted children - the number of unwanted children shouldn't affect your stance on abortion, unless you think it's ok to murder people just because they aren't wanted. Why stop at babies? Why not old people, the homeless, etc.? This particular argument doesn't hold water, imho.

How you feel and how you act are two different things. If you get angry at the homeless man on the street for taking up space, but do nothing to help, how are you living any different than what you condemn? If you protest outside the abortion clinic with awful, exagerrated signs and yell at passerbys, yet don't offer an alternative for the women who do use those services or even just support, how can you claim that you are doing the right thing and morally right?

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

You still didn't answer my question, would you believe it was okay for one state to decide to enact genocide? A simple question but one that I think does delve into the heart of what this discussion is about.

Yes, I know that slavery was left up to the state for a while. I also believe that was wrong and while I debate the motivation of Lincoln, I believe Lincoln was correct in ridding America of the atrocity of slavery. Because it was allowed does not mean it was right. Are you saying it would be right today to have states enact slavery and the federal government should stay out of that decision? I would not

Now you go into organized religion. First, religion is not about fear but about the idea of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. Yes, there is fear that does accompany that of a Holy God, but I do not serve God because I am afraid of Him but because He is glorious. Yet, there are times I will be afraid but that is not the central and motivating aspect of religion. Historically, that is why we have followed Christ, for His Glory and our mutual enjoyment of God. Like with my kids, most of the time they do what I say because they desire to please me. Yet, there are times they do something because they know the consequences. I always hope they will do what I say out of love but sometimes that is not the case.

So, according to your ideas, then, it seems that you believe all morality is made up? You seem to reject any universal aspect of morality? If that is the case, the I would believe that not even the state has the right to impose a subjective standard upon the people. Thus, by what you seem to say, it is impossible to have any logical morals? Thus, genocide is no more immoral than anything else? If not, then rationally derive morality.

Now, in the Christian realm, morality is internally consistent. I do believe when you reject Christianity you have no rational basis for any moral system. As well, then you have no rational basis for any governmental entity to impose that morality on anyone else.

BTW, for the record, I believe all law is based upon morals. The fact someone says that the federal government should stay out of something is a moral argument. Thus, the question should be, "Which morals should be enacted and why?"

Last edited by Decrease on Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Im going to throw in my $.02 here. The government should NEVER tell someone they do not have a right to chose if they want to keep a child or not. I myself having gone through child birth would never have an abortion, however...Telling someone they cant is wrong! If my country, which was founded on freedom, ever said by law abortion was illegal I would move out of this country and be ashamed to call myself an american. Im not bashing anyone, everyone is entitled to your beliefs and I respect that. This is just how I feel. Everyone (by that i mean a mojority of americans not this group) I feel are basing things upon 2 issues. Religion and Abortion/stemcell. There are other things equally important to be focusing on and they get thrown by the wayside.

So, you believe that government should never tell someone if murder is wrong or not? If science determines life begins at a certain point, we should not say it is wrong to take that life? Would you say it would be okay that a 1 day year old be terminated if the mother chose not to keep the baby? Would you say that if it was philosophically decided that a certain group of people were a burden on society, that society should be able to get rid of those people?

The issue is whether the baby in the belly is a person. If so, it is murder to have an abortion.

I believe scientifically it is logical to conclude that life begins at conception... that baby is a human. Murder is the taking of an innocent human life. Therefore, it is murder. If we should not make laws outlawing murder then where would you draw the line? Why?

Decrease wrote:You still didn't answer my question, would you believe it was okay for one state to decide to enact genocide? A simple question but one that I think does delve into the heart of what this discussion is about.

Even in the first part of the constitution, it makes provisions for that. If I recall, the preamble does make mention about establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility. Although several issues are up for debate in terms of justice and peace, I hardly think genocide is one of them.

For that reason, I seriously thought you were attempting a hyperbole. Forgive me for not giving that statement the attention due earlier.

Yes, I know that slavery was left up to the state for a while. I also believe that was wrong and while I debate the motivation of Lincoln, I believe Lincoln was correct in ridding America of the atrocity of slavery. Because it was allowed does not mean it was right. Are you saying it would be right today to have states enact slavery and the federal government should stay out of that decision? I would not

Well, no, because my ethics and reasoning are quite different than some of our citizens over a hundred years ago. Then again, my ethics and reasoning say that it's not the government's job to decide who we can and cannot marry. I think that those who attempt to justify another's relationship with their beliefs are wrong and bigoted, especially when they vote no on an anti-discrimination bill that would give the same rights to all in the workplace.

Now you go into organized religion. First, religion is not about fear but about the idea of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. Yes, there is fear that does accompany that of a Holy God, but I do not serve God because I am afraid of Him but because He is glorious. Yet, there are times I will be afraid but that is not the central and motivating aspect of religion. Historically, that is why we have followed Christ, for His Glory and our mutual enjoyment of God. Like with my kids, most of the time they do what I say because they desire to please me. Yet, there are times they do something because they know the consequences. I always hope they will do what I say out of love but sometimes that is not the case

.

And here is where we differ. One size fits all religion often carries threats, either veiled or overt. If you do wrong, you go to hell. That's not my god.My children don't live to please me, or because I threaten them. They do what they need to do because it's logical, they can see the outcome, and they've probably made a few mistakes in the past getting there. The mistakes are approached as learning opportunities, which help them grow as people. When they can think their way through, with reasoning and clear thought, it doesn't matter if I'm standing there ready to whack them if they get out of line. They do it because it makes sense, because they like the outcome. The consequence when they do mess up is logical or natural. It makes for a very respectful household, because all parties are valued. We use discipline, not punishment.

So, according to your ideas, then, it seems that you believe all morality is made up? You seem to reject any universal aspect of morality? If that is the case, the I would believe that not even the state has the right to impose a subjective standard upon the people. Thus, by what you seem to say, it is impossible to have any logical morals? Thus, genocide is no more immoral than anything else? If not, then rationally derive morality.

No, according to your ideas all morality is made up. I believe true morality stems from the belief that others are worthy of being treated as we wish to be. The golden rule, if you will. We reap what we sow.I am having a hard time following your thoughts toward the end of this part. It seems to be talking in circles.

Now, in the Christian realm, morality is internally consistent. I do believe when you reject Christianity you have no rational basis for any moral system. As well, then you have no rational basis for any governmental entity to impose that morality on anyone else.

Well, seeing as how our country isn't Christian, we should reject 'christian' morality and go with the simple, effective, Golden rule. I do dislike your term of 'rational' here. Are you saying Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and everyone else are not rational and have no moral system? I find that to be an extremely inflammatory statement, one that shouldn't come from the mind of someone spouting "christian" this and "christian" that.
Just like a school, a family, or a community, rules are needed to ensure order and peace. A state is no different. As a governing entity, there is the responsibility that all citizens (fetuses are not citizens) are safe. We have a saying here, your rights end where mine begin. You have a right to do whatever you like as long as it is not harming others. That is where a government steps in.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

So, you believe that government should never tell someone if murder is wrong or not? If science determines life begins at a certain point, we should not say it is wrong to take that life? Would you say it would be okay that a 1 day year old be terminated if the mother chose not to keep the baby? Would you say that if it was philosophically decided that a certain group of people were a burden on society, that society should be able to get rid of those people?

The issue is whether the baby in the belly is a person. If so, it is murder to have an abortion.

I believe scientifically it is logical to conclude that life begins at conception... that baby is a human. Murder is the taking of an innocent human life. Therefore, it is murder. If we should not make laws outlawing murder then where would you draw the line? Why?

Babies come from a womb, or uterus. Not a belly.

Legally, life begins at implantation, not conception. This is important, especially if you use or condone the use of birth control (which I'm assuming, since you're not throwing up your arms over that). The point of viability (26weeks) is when a fetus is considered a potentially seperate person with protective rights. This is why almost no abortions are performed after 20 weeks - less than 1%, and it's only legal up to 24 weeks, and only 8% of doctors willing to perform abortions do it then. And I think you missed this before, but abortion rates are going DOWN even with legalized abortion! In the days when abstinence was the only thing people talked about and information on safe sex was hard to get ahold of, we had an upswing in abortion rates. I mean, if that doesn't say that something is working, and that something is NOT cruel words, lack of knowledge, condemning actions, and shunning those in need of help, I don't know what does.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

I don't support abortion but I don't picket either. I support showing women what the alternatives are. We also support women who are suffering the psychologically affects of abortion. That is needed sometimes more than alternatives. Many non-profit org are changing what they do because of this.

When doctors find ways to help babies stay a live earlier than 24 weeks do we change the laws? Does it matter when they are viable. They have heartbeats don't they?

Most people don't support abortion. What they do support is a woman's right to make that choice for herself in a safe manner, with education, and lots of options. It's such a personal matter that it's hard to tell someone else exactly how they should spend the next 18 years.

"The greatest sign of success for a teacher... is to be able to say, "The children are now working as if I did not exist."

So, you believe that government should never tell someone if murder is wrong or not? If science determines life begins at a certain point, we should not say it is wrong to take that life? Would you say it would be okay that a 1 day year old be terminated if the mother chose not to keep the baby? Would you say that if it was philosophically decided that a certain group of people were a burden on society, that society should be able to get rid of those people?

The issue is whether the baby in the belly is a person. If so, it is murder to have an abortion.

I believe scientifically it is logical to conclude that life begins at conception... that baby is a human. Murder is the taking of an innocent human life. Therefore, it is murder. If we should not make laws outlawing murder then where would you draw the line? Why?

I guess I threw myself into this situation so I will defend my words. I said I myself would NEVER have an abortion! For us to tell someone what to do with their own bodies is beyond it. Its just like telling someone they can not do drugs. They do it anyway dont they. I am against drugs as well but what poeple decide to do is what they are going to do. And laws wont help it, they will only go into closets to do it there. I never once said I believed in abortion, I said I believe in the choices people have.

Decrease wrote:So, you are essentially saying that if a state wished to enact genocide they should be allowed. Is that your stand?

I am saying that you have three choices: Decide it at the federal level, decide it at the state level, or devolve into total chaos. I would like nothing better than to see abortion gone completely, but that is just not going to happen at the federal level. At the state level, most states would outlaw partial-birth abortion at minimum, and many would outlaw abortion entirely.

Lily wrote:How you feel and how you act are two different things. If you get angry at the homeless man on the street for taking up space, but do nothing to help, how are you living any different than what you condemn? If you protest outside the abortion clinic with awful, exagerrated signs and yell at passerbys, yet don't offer an alternative for the women who do use those services or even just support, how can you claim that you are doing the right thing and morally right?

I donated to a local charity that supplies meals to the homeless. As for abortion clinic protesting - the signs may be graphic, but only because a "fetus" is not really just a blob of tissue. If you can't make it past the signs, you shouldn't be having an abortion in the first place. And there are plenty of pro-life women's clinics set up now that match newborns to people looking to adopt. It's relatively easy to place newborns, just not older children.

Decrease wrote:Yes, I know that slavery was left up to the state for a while. I also believe that was wrong and while I debate the motivation of Lincoln, I believe Lincoln was correct in ridding America of the atrocity of slavery. Because it was allowed does not mean it was right. Are you saying it would be right today to have states enact slavery and the federal government should stay out of that decision? I would not

The issue was that a large part of the economy of the South depended on slaves, and the North wanted to free all the slaves without paying for them. Britain managed to free all slaves across their entire empire without any fuss, by the simple expedient of reimbursing their owners. Yes, slavery was evil, but the Civil War (and retribution against the South even after the war was over) actually set back true black equality for some time. Blacks were already on the way to being peaceably set free, probably within another 20 years, but the war inflamed the South to the point where blacks weren't treated as equals for much longer than that. Freedom on paper isn't much use if most of the population isn't willing to cooperate.

Buying the slaves would have cost much less than the war, and would in my opinion have been the right thing to do. The South fought not because they loved slavery (only one in three soldiers even owned slaves), but because the North was using its greater population to dictate to the South.

momo3boys wrote:When doctors find ways to help babies stay a live earlier than 24 weeks do we change the laws? Does it matter when they are viable. They have heartbeats don't they?

The record is now 22 weeks, or even a bit before. That's one of the reasons why banning partial-birth abortion is getting such backing now.

sunnie_skys wrote:I guess I threw myself into this situation so I will defend my words. I said I myself would NEVER have an abortion! For us to tell someone what to do with their own bodies is beyond it. Its just like telling someone they can not do drugs. They do it anyway dont they. I am against drugs as well but what poeple decide to do is what they are going to do. And laws wont help it, they will only go into closets to do it there. I never once said I believed in abortion, I said I believe in the choices people have.

So you're saying that unless you can perfectly enforce a law, the law shouldn't be there in the first place? What about seatbelt rules? Why not allow everyone to drive with no seatbelt, it's their body, right? What about riding a motorcycle with no helmet? How about committing suicide, period? And you're ignoring the fact that it's not just the mother involved, it's the unborn baby too. Someone who shoots a pregnant women in the belly and kills her baby gets a murder charge, so why isn't it murder when a mother has her baby aborted? Either a baby is human or it isn't human.

Decrease wrote:You still didn't answer my question, would you believe it was okay for one state to decide to enact genocide? A simple question but one that I think does delve into the heart of what this discussion is about.

Even in the first part of the constitution, it makes provisions for that. If I recall, the preamble does make mention about establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility. Although several issues are up for debate in terms of justice and peace, I hardly think genocide is one of them.

For that reason, I seriously thought you were attempting a hyperbole. Forgive me for not giving that statement the attention due earlier.

Lilly, this is no hyperbola. I think this is a serious question that relates directly to the question. If abortion is the taking of a life thus murder (which is what genocide is by her very nature) then there is no distinction consitutionally between the federal government stopping genocide and stopping abortion. They are the same, if life begins at conception.

Lilly wrote: Well, no, because my ethics and reasoning are quite different than some of our citizens over a hundred years ago. Then again, my ethics and reasoning say that it's not the government's job to decide who we can and cannot marry. I think that those who attempt to justify another's relationship with their beliefs are wrong and bigoted, especially when they vote no on an anti-discrimination bill that would give the same rights to all in the workplace.

Lilly, you are trying to change the subject from a life/death issue to marriage. Let me make a clear statement thought, without religion it is impossible to rationally deduce marriage. Therefore, a construct of marriage without religion is impossible and cannot, by her very nature, be bigoted because it is a religious institution defined by religion that non-religious people for some reason with to engage. My question is always, "Why in the world would a non-religious person want to be married?" They cannot and no one ever can rationally deduce marriage without religion. So, for a non-religious person who rejects the precepts of religion holding to marriage is like an atheist who wants to hold to creation, it is hypocritical and irrational. So, until you can show me how you can rationally deduce marriage without religion, I think we could have a discussion on this topic, but it is impossible.

And here is where we differ. One size fits all religion often carries threats, either veiled or overt. If you do wrong, you go to hell. That's not my god.My children don't live to please me, or because I threaten them. They do what they need to do because it's logical, they can see the outcome, and they've probably made a few mistakes in the past getting there. The mistakes are approached as learning opportunities, which help them grow as people. When they can think their way through, with reasoning and clear thought, it doesn't matter if I'm standing there ready to whack them if they get out of line. They do it because it makes sense, because they like the outcome. The consequence when they do mess up is logical or natural. It makes for a very respectful household, because all parties are valued. We use discipline, not punishment. [/quote="Lilly]

My kids do not live to please me, they live to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Yet, I hope my kids do not obey because they "have to" but because they "want to". I think you are reading too much into my post saying things that I was not saying. I want my kids to love me so much that they do not want to disobey me. For me, it is about a relationship with me and God and not about just developing character. I develop character through relationship.

Lilly wrote:No, according to your ideas all morality is made up. I believe true morality stems from the belief that others are worthy of being treated as we wish to be. The golden rule, if you will. We reap what we sow.I am having a hard time following your thoughts toward the end of this part. It seems to be talking in circles.

Lilly, my contention is that without religion morality is irrational and circular. That is the summation of my viewpoint. That is the summary of what I said. Essentially, without religion it is impossible to have a rational basis for morality. Or, as one scholar noted (atheistic scholar) is that without religion we just "make up" our morality. Without religion, morality is made up. Religion has a basis that is not circular where they get their religion. If they are correct, they get it from God. Athiests get it from a variety of measures they make up like "majority rules", "what we feel", and the like.

Lilly wrote:Well, seeing as how our country isn't Christian, we should reject 'christian' morality and go with the simple, effective, Golden rule. I do dislike your term of 'rational' here. Are you saying Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and everyone else are not rational and have no moral system? I find that to be an extremely inflammatory statement, one that shouldn't come from the mind of someone spouting "christian" this and "christian" that. Just like a school, a family, or a community, rules are needed to ensure order and peace. A state is no different. As a governing entity, there is the responsibility that all citizens (fetuses are not citizens) are safe. We have a saying here, your rights end where mine begin. You have a right to do whatever you like as long as it is not harming others. That is where a government steps in.

Lilly, I think your statement is irrational. We should not reject a religion because "our country is not Christian". Rather, we should explore that religion and if it is true we should accept it and if it is false, we should reject it. Rejection of something should not come because the majority of people reject it (circular reasoning) but based upon the truthfulness of the religion.

In conclusion, back to the original point, abortion is like genocide in that it is dealing with issues of life. There is no real difference between genocide and abortion made by anyone here in that it is the vast movement of the taking of life. As a result, I see no distinction from the Federal Government ruling on abortion and ruling on Genocide.

Theodore wrote:I am saying that you have three choices: Decide it at the federal level, decide it at the state level, or devolve into total chaos. I would like nothing better than to see abortion gone completely, but that is just not going to happen at the federal level. At the state level, most states would outlaw partial-birth abortion at minimum, and many would outlaw abortion entirely.

Yet, on an issue like this, would you not agree that it should be decided on the federal level? Whether it could or not is not the issue. Should issues like abortion, genocide, and slavery be decided on the Federal level? I agree, it must be decided but I do not think it should be an option. It appears you want issues like abortion, genocide, and slavery to be decided individually but you are afraid to answer the question due to the fact that it sounds

Secondly, why is chaos bad? If "free market' and morality should not be dictated to people then why in the world mandate it from government? Chaos is only bad if there is a form of morality which says chaos is bad. Yet, why would it be bad to let the free market choose morality and let people decide what they should or should not do. If morality is religious and government should not be engaged in morality then get government completely out of morality issues. If it is wrong to go into chaos, is that not a moral statement as well?

Theodore wrote: The issue was that a large part of the economy of the South depended on slaves, and the North wanted to free all the slaves without paying for them. Britain managed to free all slaves across their entire empire without any fuss, by the simple expedient of reimbursing their owners. Yes, slavery was evil, but the Civil War (and retribution against the South even after the war was over) actually set back true black equality for some time. Blacks were already on the way to being peaceably set free, probably within another 20 years, but the war inflamed the South to the point where blacks weren't treated as equals for much longer than that. Freedom on paper isn't much use if most of the population isn't willing to cooperate.

I do not believe we were that close to freeing slaves. Yes, Britain did free slaves long before but it was due to a procedure move years before which made the slave trade a financial suicide issue. Yet, that still does not answer the main point, should not the Federal government dictate that issue? The answer I believe most would answer, even among conservatives, is "yes". In fact, I think it would be political suicide to say otherwise. Could we have bought the slaves? Maybe, but the objection was not that people could sell the slaves but that the economy depended upon them.

The issue, though, is that the law should be enacted to protect people from a federal level. Sometimes war does take place but that is the role of the Federal government, which is the point of my post.